This study investigates the linguistic characteristics and rhetorical functions of three pivotal Chinese character keywords-‘任那’, ‘連絡’, and ‘東京’-employed in the representation of Busan within the Chōsen Ryokō Annai-ki (Guide to Travel in Korea), published by the Railway Bureau of the Government-General of Korea in 1934. By integrating morphological analysis, syntactic structure, and semantic expansion with a semiotic framework (iconicity, indexicality, and symbolism), this research elucidates the sophisticated mechanisms of “Sinographic rhetoric” used to naturalize colonial rule. The analysis reveals how these keywords strategically restructured the perception of colonial space. First, ‘任那’ transformed a historical proper noun into a common noun phrase to frame Busan as a space inherently subordinate to Japan since antiquity. By dismissing the Silla and Goryeo dynasties as mere transitional phases and linking Joseon-era Japanese settlements directly to the origins of the modern port, the discourse erased Korean historical agency and presented Japanese presence as a historical inevitability. Second, ‘連絡’ underwent a multi-layered semantic expansion-transitioning from a technical communication term to a signifier of transportation, military coordination, and administrative control. The subtle morphological distinction between ‘連’ (physical connection) and ‘聯’ (human association) allowed the imperial system to distinguish technical infrastructure from social control while simultaneously integrating them under a singular phonetic identity, disguising coercion as “natural convenience.” Finally, the ‘東京’ metaphor elevated Busan to a status equivalent to the imperial capital, effectively marginalizing Seoul (Gyeongseong) as a provincial relic. By stripping Seoul of its political substance and transplanting economic vitality to Busan, the text hollowed out the symbolic authority of the Joseon dynasty. These three keywords operated in tandem to legitimize the 1929 imperial policy of transforming Korea into a logistical base. While ‘任那’ provided historical legitimacy and ‘連絡’ naturalized spatial integration, ‘東京’ rationalized a new imperial hierarchy. Together, they reconstructed Busan as a strategic nexus that was historically legitimate, spatially seamless, and hierarchically inevitable. The study suggests that, at least within this text, colonialism in the Sinographic sphere may have operated through a linguistic mechanism distinct from colonial situations where an alien script marked the distance between ruler and ruled. Rather than constructing difference through linguistic alterity, the imperial authority here exploited a shared morphological heritage, monopolizing the semantic definitions of characters that Korean readers could already recognize. Whether this mechanism is specific to the Sinographic sphere requires further comparative verification. While Koreans could read the characters, the Japanese authorities monopolized their semantic definitions. This “homogenization” rather than “othering” made the colonial discourse particularly insidious, as the sharing of the script hindered the development of a distinct language of resistance. By conceptualizing Sinographic rhetoric through a synthesis of morphological and discourse analysis, this study argues that recognizing the sinographic medium as a site of imperial semantic control represents a necessary step toward understanding the particular durability of colonial epistemologies within the Sinographic sphere.